Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
* Stephen Frost [Tue, Jan 07 2003, 09:18:22AM]:
> Once gcc-defaults is updated all of the buildds will start compiling
> things with gcc3.2 unless the package has some explicit statement to the
> contrary. Developers who are going to be compiling c102 packages should
> make sure their systems are updated (we require this in other ways
> anyway I'm pretty sure). Therefore I would say, no, they don't have to
> build-depend on gcc >= 2:3.2-1; it's the current default and there's
> nothing to say that someone couldn't download the source and build a
> non-c102 package from it. In fact, I imagine the 'source' portion won't
> have the c102...
I disagree. Following your argumentation, the "source itself does not
depend on a compiler". This is correct if you build it manually
without any Debian involvement. But if you build it with Debian scripts
for official Debian systems, you have to keep some requirements in mind.
The same way as we expect to build shared libs without PIC code, use
-O2 optimisations, give proper SONAMEs to every shared lib, etc. These
are already restrictions to the produced code, even if upstream
sometimes disagree. I don't see why another clause like g++-3.2
build-dependency should not be allowed.
iMac - Täglich frisch bei McDonalds